Just watched Star Trek V The Final Frontier
- Thread starter stonester1
- Start date
Name a Romulan who was that jovial.
^On paper, he was exactly what you say. But the execution left much to be desired. We weren't seeing a Vulcan laugh. We were seeing a jovial human who just happened to be wearing pointed ears.
Think about the various times in TOS when Spock's emotions were let loose. There was always something creepy and disturbing about it. Perhaps because we were used to seeing Nimoy acting emotionally restrained. But that's how they should have cast Sybok--get somebody who's more introverted, and make them act extroverted. In casting somebody who came off as completely, naturally extroverted, they didn't sell the point.
A more intriguing way to portray a Vulcan who embraces his emotions would be to have him embrace negative emotions as well as positive ones. For the "villain" of the story, Sybok was unusually likeable. Imagine if they'd given him a pronounced negative side--had him flying off in rages with little provocation, that sort of thing. Show us that there's a reason that the Vulcans are so big about restraining their emotions, as TOS established.
Think about the various times in TOS when Spock's emotions were let loose. There was always something creepy and disturbing about it. Perhaps because we were used to seeing Nimoy acting emotionally restrained. But that's how they should have cast Sybok--get somebody who's more introverted, and make them act extroverted. In casting somebody who came off as completely, naturally extroverted, they didn't sell the point.
A more intriguing way to portray a Vulcan who embraces his emotions would be to have him embrace negative emotions as well as positive ones. For the "villain" of the story, Sybok was unusually likeable. Imagine if they'd given him a pronounced negative side--had him flying off in rages with little provocation, that sort of thing. Show us that there's a reason that the Vulcans are so big about restraining their emotions, as TOS established.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Good points, but remember that the earliest Sybok versions had him carrying off a bloody attack, not a casualty-free one, and THEN they started turning him into less of a Khan-type.
As for the laughing ... If they'd cast Max Von Sydow as Sybok (which I think was an early intention), I think he'd have put across the oddness of a vulcan laugh (he can make almost anything effortless, but if you look at his King in CONAN, when that guy laughs it rings false, though that may be the work ethic faltering under the size of the paycheck.)
Klaus Maria Brandauer was I believe another early choice, and while he is awesome in MEPHISTO and keeps NEVER SAY NEVER from disintegrating completely, I don't know that his dimensions would have put across a Vulcan (a Luckinbill problem as well.)
Luckinbill has one moment that works for me (it is the key one) ... when Kirk calls him mad and he reflects a moment ... luckinbill really channels Sean Connery there, and it is unfortunate in a way because it always makes me see how it could have worked with Connery, because Connery is a good actor with star charisma, whereas Luckinbill is a good actor without it, playing onscreen against western world icons.
As for the laughing ... If they'd cast Max Von Sydow as Sybok (which I think was an early intention), I think he'd have put across the oddness of a vulcan laugh (he can make almost anything effortless, but if you look at his King in CONAN, when that guy laughs it rings false, though that may be the work ethic faltering under the size of the paycheck.)
Klaus Maria Brandauer was I believe another early choice, and while he is awesome in MEPHISTO and keeps NEVER SAY NEVER from disintegrating completely, I don't know that his dimensions would have put across a Vulcan (a Luckinbill problem as well.)
Luckinbill has one moment that works for me (it is the key one) ... when Kirk calls him mad and he reflects a moment ... luckinbill really channels Sean Connery there, and it is unfortunate in a way because it always makes me see how it could have worked with Connery, because Connery is a good actor with star charisma, whereas Luckinbill is a good actor without it, playing onscreen against western world icons.
Last edited:
^A little too ambitious, though. Searching for the truths of existence should have some basis in science, or philosophical relevance, or something. Going to meet "God" on a planet in the center of the galaxy was a little too broad.
But to give TFF its due, it looks like a masterpiece of cinema compared to the derivative, contrived piece of crap that is Nemesis.
But to give TFF its due, it looks like a masterpiece of cinema compared to the derivative, contrived piece of crap that is Nemesis.
TFF aspired to be more than your normal summer blockbuster. It may have been too broad for some people, but for your normal popcorn munching audience it introduced some weighty ideas. I respect that. Shatner could have done a normal space shoot-em-up if he wanted, but he knew Trek was more than that and he wanted to go deeper. Does the movie have problems? No doubt. Does it introduce big ideas and have the best character moments of any Trek film? No doubt.
What are the big, weighty ideas of TFF? That God can be found in the human heart? That we need our mistakes? That friends can become closer than brothers? I don't see anything here that would have gone over the general audience's collective head, nor anything more profound than, say, Yoda's wisdom in TESB.
Patrick Stewart insisted that Nemesis was saying something profound and relevant, though I don't know anyone who figured out what it was supposed to be. It's more than the intended message--it's how well you deliver it.
Patrick Stewart insisted that Nemesis was saying something profound and relevant, though I don't know anyone who figured out what it was supposed to be. It's more than the intended message--it's how well you deliver it.
Well, if you would take the time to actually read my post, you'll see that I pointed out that the ideas might seem weighty to the general summer movie audience, not "go over their heads." Nor did I say that the ideas were "profound". I simply said that it aspired to be more than a sci-fi shoot-em-up by exploring issues such as how our experiences, even the painful ones, make us who we are and that we need them for better or worse, or that we all have a need to answer the ultimate question. What does mortality mean to us? Is there anything after death? Are we a cosmic accident or is there some design? Star Trek V addressed these questions in a very broad way and posited the idea that those answers should be sought internally because they can never be answered externally. I'm not saying its some super-intelligent movie, I just appreciate the fact that it was talked about at all in a big-budget summer sci-fi movie. I think shatner made a brave choice when it would have been far safer to do something more conventional. Star Trek V has alot of problems and isn't the best Trek movie by any means, but I really like what they were going for.
Ah, semantical quibbling...my biggest turn-off on the Net.
I think you're reading lot more into this movie than it actually said. The big, vague "Quest for God" may have been about all of those things by implication, but the movie didn't do a very good job of articulating any of that. You try to paint it as more than your typical popcorn film, but it was actually the most popcorny of the TOS films, with the possible exception of TVH...which, despite its lighthearted tone, managed to much more successfully deliver a message with its entertainment. I think that TFF tried to follow in the footsteps of its predecessors by saying something "big", and went for something way too big, stumbling badly in the process.
"Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?" Been there, done that much more effectively in TMP.
I'm not reading anything into the movie. I'm simply telling you what I took away from it. It's subjective so results may vary. To say that it's the most "popcorny" of the TOS films seems silly to me. TWOK was far more so for my tastes. As well as TVH, which you mentioned. I find TVH heavy-handed and my TFF disc has gotten much more play. Shatner tried to go deeper than a "Save the whales" theme. I agree that with you that he bit off more than he could chew, but I still thought it was a valiant effort and I respect him for it. As far a semantical quibbling, I look at it as you trying to put words into my mouth and for me that truly is the biggest turn-off on the net.
For my money, TWOK had a lot more going on upstairs than TFF.
Well, it's all pretty subjective. I thought that TWOK had alot of heart but didn't require a lot of thought. TFF was going for both and didn't completely succeed. But as I said before, I appreciate their efforts.
This is not 'semantical quibbling'. This is a case of different words having different meanings. You, however, have twisted the meaning of a word (semantics) to describe something other than its own definition. You have played the semantics game, and therefore are your own biggest turn-off on the net. How's it feel?
To those saying that emotional Sybok was 'too human' and that he should be 'darker' because, hey, why else would Vulcans suppress emotions if they weren't so volatile all the time?:
There is another aspect to being a Vulcan, and that is their little telepathic trick that they do. Sybok, while perfectly pleasant and quite the idealist that wanted peace and detested conflict, used his Vulcan mind games to telepathically subdue others to his 'cause', whether intentionally or not. Perhaps it was a side effect of this quality that caused so much conflict and violence on Vulcan that the only way they could suppress it included, by extension, a suppression of emotion as well.
Tomalak was a jovial fellow
"How long shall we stare at each other across the neutral zone??"
As for TFF, it's 50 times the movie TVH was. IMO of course.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
When I get some more time, I'm going to look up your other posts. From what I've seen, I'm really impressed, some good speculation (by good, I mean speculation based on observation and thought, not just blue sky musing.)
I'm blushing, thanks.
I haven't been a member long so there isn't much to read, I'm afraid. Been a Trek fan all my life and it was popular in my social circle, so therefore have had plenty of conversations about this stuff over the years.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
If Lawence Lukenbill got you to think you were watching a man who just so happened to have pointed ears on, then he did EXACTLY what the role demanded...he was great, IMO...and compared to NEMESIS and INSURRECTION? its light years better..and made more money, not even accounting for inflation, than NEMESIS...
So, TREK V had its issues, but is far from being the worse TREK film..NEMESIS, IMO, wins that award hands down...it just an awful movie with no 'character' moments to even give it an effort....
Rob
I remember reading an interview (possibly with Nimoy), and he said that the effects were shoddy because there was some kind of strike/job action going on with the FX people, and they had to make too many compromises in order to get the film to a completed state. Also, Shatner's original story was far different, and had demons from hell actually dragging Bones and Spock off to some hellish pit/dimension--waaay more serious and dark than what it eventually became. The studio said "we like the one with the whales--do it like that", and so some serious changes got forced onto Shatner, leading to the film we now know. Wish I could remmber the source of that interview. Anyone?
Similar threads
- Poll
